Injin Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Not the class of money he was referring to. I got the context. It seems you missed it. All was the word used. One instance otherwise disproves his following thesis. And there is one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 All was the word used. One instance otherwise disproves his following thesis. And there is one. He had a context. Like talking about all the potatoes - when gardening your veggie patch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 He had a context. Like talking about all the potatoes - when gardening your veggie patch. I understand that. I also understand that the real world is not divisible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 I understand that. I also understand that the real world is not divisible. So I can't tell my son to bring in all the potatoes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 So I can't tell my son to bring in all the potatoes? No idea what this means. I do know that rules about money are going to be universal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 No idea what this means. I do know that rules about money are going to be universal. Talking in riddles again I see. He established a perfectly valid context. He wasn't talking about monopoly money nor WH Smith vouchers nor ciggies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scepticus Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 He is. Government can emit coinage. Everything else is a derivative. Welcome back. However I'm not wrong. I can emit coinage with my face printed on it but that doesn't have the same effect as the government doing so, even though I'm better looking than the queen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Welcome back. However I'm not wrong. I can emit coinage with my face printed on it but that doesn't have the same effect as the government doing so, even though I'm better looking than the queen. So you are saying there can be no money (in your context - for the hard of hearing) without debt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Welcome back. However I'm not wrong. I can emit coinage with my face printed on it but that doesn't have the same effect as the government doing so, even though I'm better looking than the queen. You can however create a medium of exchange for yourself and others. After all if people in prison can, I can hardly see why you have less power to do so than they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scepticus Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 No debt with barter. Agreed, because there is no deferment of settlement. Barter pre-dates debt, and debt pre-dates money. One wonders how ripplepay.com fits into this discussion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 So you are saying there can be no money (in your context - for the hard of hearing) without debt? Of course he is quite correct in that context. Government and bankster money doesn't have any value unless they can make someone desperate for it. After all, unlike ciggies, government money has no market value at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scepticus Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 So you are saying there can be no money (in your context - for the hard of hearing) without debt? Yes. Money to be such must be unquestionably accepted for payment by all, thus all must be in debt to the exact tune of the amount of money. Of course as soon as that happens, tax appears almost instantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Of course he is quite correct in that context. Government and bankster money doesn't have any value unless they can make someone desperate for it. After all, unlike ciggies, government money has no market value at all. So if ALL debtors default - does ALL the coinage disappear? Does it lose its ability to form legal tender? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Yes. Money to be such must be unquestionably accepted for payment by all, thus all must be in debt to the exact tune of the amount of money. So if ALL debtors default - does ALL the coinage disappear? Does it lose its ability to form legal tender? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 So if ALL debtors default - does ALL the coinage disappear? Does it lose its ability to form legal tender? It loses it's market value. Unless you need someone to extinguish debt, it's useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 It loses it's market value. Unless you need someone to extinguish debt, it's useless. And what of future taxation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 And what of future taxation? That would be a debt created at gunpoint and is a different sceanrio than the one you suggested. ofc, you might decide (if for instance your government was obviously in cahoots with a bunch of criminal shitheads) to say ****** it and not pay your taxes anyway. That would also remove the debt and the value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Yes. Money to be such must be unquestionably accepted for payment by all, thus all must be in debt to the exact tune of the amount of money. Of course as soon as that happens, tax appears almost instantly. This isn't true either. Money just has to be widely accepted, not universally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 That would be a debt created at gunpoint and is a different sceanrio than the one you suggested. Yes. But expectations of future taxation or consumption of debt based services will not render coinage worthless. It's metallic content can be used to meet demand. No debt but money will still circulate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Yes. But expectations of future taxation or consumption of debt based services will not render coinage worthless. It's metallic content can be used to meet demand. No debt but money will still circulate. if it gets to that point you'd be better off knocking over a streetlight for the copper, tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scepticus Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 So if ALL debtors default - does ALL the coinage disappear? Does it lose its ability to form legal tender? There is no point distinguishing between tax and legal tender laws, since both create a cloud of debt, from which money springs. If all debtors default but the coinage retains its value then it implies a debt remains that wants clearing. So what I am saying is that debt exists at two levels, individuals (your debtors) and culturally, collectively (us all). Any society surviving an implosion of the former and in which the latter has not lost all actual value implies that sufficient social cohesion and bonds remain which implies the existence of debts which have not been cancelled. It is theoretically possible for all money to disappear but for trade to continue using a scheme like ripple, which requires only a unit of account which is pure information (and even that only needs to exist between pairs of individuals but no actual specie. Of course the issue does arise of the fees due to whatever entity makes the ripple communication possible and ensures transactions atomicity.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 There is no point distinguishing between tax and legal tender laws, since both create a cloud of debt, from which money springs. If all debtors default but the coinage retains its value then it implies a debt remains that wants clearing. So what I am saying is that debt exists at two levels, individuals (your debtors) and culturally, collectively (us all). Any society surviving an implosion of the former and in which the latter has not lost all actual value implies that sufficient social cohesion and bonds remain which implies the existence of debts which have not been cancelled. It is theoretically possible for all money to disappear but for trade to continue using a scheme like ripple, which requires only a unit of account which is pure information (and even that only needs to exist between pairs of individuals but no actual specie. Of course the issue does arise of the fees due to whatever entity makes the ripple communication possible and ensures transactions atomicity.... No, legal tender laws don't create debt. If there were no contractual disputes then there would be no demand created. Not likely I know but accuracy is important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) There is no point distinguishing between tax and legal tender laws, since both create a cloud of debt, from which money springs. If all debtors default but the coinage retains its value then it implies a debt remains that wants clearing. No this is wrong. If I borrow a tenner from Bank Scepticus - you have funded this loan. I have received a benefit that you have forgone. This is debt. Taxation is not debt because the recipient has not funded it initially - and it has no servicing cost to them. Edited May 23, 2011 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scepticus Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 No this is wrong. If I borrow a tenner from Bank Scepticus - you have funded this loan. I have received a benefit that you have forgone. This is debt. agreed. Taxation is not debt because the recipient has not funded it initially - and it has no cost to them. Of course it has a cost - if I am taxed then I forgo consumption, and the guy that gets a benefit whether it be jobseekers allowance or has an assualt on her person prevented by Her Majesty's police has received the bounty of my forgone consumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) Of course it has a cost - if I am taxed then I forgo consumption, and the guy that gets a benefit whether it be jobseekers allowance or has an assualt on her person prevented by Her Majesty's police has received the bounty of my forgone consumption. It has no funding cost. In fact the State received benefit by spending it in the first place. Edited May 23, 2011 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.